mable to law
and the usage of parliament," which was eventually carried by a large
majority.

On the 2nd of February, pursuant to notice, the Marquess of Rockingham
made a similar motion to that of Mr. Dowdeswell in the house of lords.
He moved, "That the house of commons, in the exercise of its judicature
in matters of elections, is bound to judge according to the law of the
land, and the known and established law and custom of parliament, which
is part thereof" This was opposed by Lord Sandwich on the ground of
improper interference with the lower house, which, if aggrieved, had the
means of redress in its own power. Lord Sandwich was answered by Lord
Chatham. In the course of his speech, Sandwich had alluded to the
expulsion of Lionel, Earl of Middlesex, and the great Lord Bacon, "for
certain crimes and misdemeanours," from which he argued that the peers
now ought to take no more notice of the expulsion of Wilkes, than the
commons then had taken notice of the expulsion pronounced by their
lordships on the above-named noble offenders. To this point Chatham
replied: "Neither of these cases bear any analogy to the present case.
They affected only themselves: the rights of no constituent body were
affected by them. It is not the person of Mr. Wilkes we complain of;
as an individual he is personally out of the dispute. The cause of
complaint, the great cause is, that the inherent rights and franchises
of the people are in this case invaded, trampled upon, annihilated. Lord
Bacon and Lord Middlesex represented no county or city: the rights of
no freeholder, the franchises of no elector, were destroyed by their
expulsion!" In his speech, Chatham declaimed with great severity against
the gross dereliction of principle shown by the commons. They were,
indeed, he said, the proper protectors of their own rights and
privileges; but he lamented that they had, by their recent conduct,
forgotten those privileges, and had added to the long list of venality
from Esau to the present day. The vote of the commons which made Colonel
Luttrell representative for Middlesex, he maintained, was a gross
invasion of law and of the rights of election; a dangerous violation of
the constitution; a treacherous surrender of privileges; and a corrupt
sacrifice of honour. He added, that to gratify the resentment of certain
individuals, the laws had been despised and destroyed, and that
since the commons had slavishly obeyed the commands of his majesty